![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I noticed the random featured article link is going out to another site which appears to be nonfunctional, at least with the latest version of safari for the iPhone. I am also surprised its a feature which is not part of the Wikipedia site, but some tool that a single person is solely responsible for. Maybe we should remove that link until it can be maintained on wikipedia's servers 75.158.88.133 ( talk) 04:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed that roughly half of FAC promotions/archives are done by Ian Rose and the other half are done by Graham Colm. Ucucha has not edited in a month and has not promoted or archived a FAC since late August. Thus, I have posted the following on Ucucha's talk page:
Hello Ucucha. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've noticed that you haven't edited in a month and haven't promoted or archived any FAC since late August. I understand that you might be busy or that something has come up in your life that limits your on-wiki time, but still, you're a FAC coordinator. If you find that you are no longer able or willing to serve in that capacity, it might be for the best that you step down.
I in no way mean to disrespect the tremendous effort you have put in at Wikipedia, both in writing articles and in serving as a FAC coordinator, but I do think you owe it to the community to either return to active involvement in promoting and archiving FAC candidates or step aside and let someone else do the job. I would greatly appreciate a reply. Thank you.
I will also raise my concerns at the FAC talk page. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I am perfectly willing to allow Ucucha to address my concerns himself, and the process of removing or adding any FAC coordinators should not be done in a hasty manner. I am not sure how the community should replace Ucucha, if the community decides that that is the best course of action, but we should think this through.
In summary, I think Ucucha's inaction should be addressed at some point, but I think to be fair to him we should give him some time to defend himself. And any process of replacement should take place after we have given due consideration to the process and potential candidates for such a position. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, as an alternative to pinging or leaving messages for the FAC coords individually, we now have the {{ @FAC}} template notification that pings them as a group. The FAC instructions have been updated accordingly. Let me know if any questions/problems. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The title is Featured articles. The content is 99% a list/ grouping of the current? English? Featured articles (as of when?, is it comprehensive (automatically maintained) or regularly updated?). I am looking for information about the various quality levels of Wikipedia articles, and naturally EXPECT an article "Featured articles" to put the term in context. This does not. No references, nothing. I suggest this article's title be changed to "Featured articles - list by subject area". It would be nice for it actually to reference a substantitive article about featured articles, but perhaps that is asking too much. Abitslow ( talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including featured articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing an article that I hope to bring here on a television documentary and it would be nice to have something to compare it to. Does anybody know of nay examples offhand of FAs on documentaries? I've had a look at the list and all the TV stuff seems to be fiction (not that there's anything wrong with fiction, it's just not much help for my situation!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stormy388 ( talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let people on this project know, Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, a featured article, has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. St Anselm ( talk) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyway to tell which featured article(s) is/are the shortest (in bytes)? Or maybe there's a bot that can generate a list? I'm curious to see the shortest FA length since a GA I worked on has failed an FA nom three times for being too short, despite being extensively covered in every detail. – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me (and my computer) or is Template:Featured article, also known as the star that appears in the top right of every featured article, too low? I assume it's a result of the recent typography update. I can post a screenshot if necessary. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am considering bringing 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA but I suspect that PR wont give me the feedback I might need so I would like to ask the more experienced FA participants if they feel this is ready or if they can point out areas where it needs improvement. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#OPENPARA RfC. Giant Snowman 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 45 threads on this page and the oldest have not been responded to since November 2012. I've therefore added automatic archiving to this page. Threads with no responses in 90 days (that's 3 months) will be archived. -- LT910001 ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed today's FA is on "Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow", a video game. I do not know off the top of my head how many video games have been the subject of featured articles, but I can tell you that as a member of the Wikipedia-reading public that there seem to have been a lot of these in recent years and that they seem to be the result of a niche interest in the subject generally. I find it unlikely that there aren't enough articles on a wider variety of subjects that qualify for featured article status... So while I acknowledge that video games are a significant part of the world-experience for a number of Wikipedia users, I wanted to encourage consideration of other subject matter for future Wikipedia featured articles. That is all. Keep calm and carry on. KDS4444 Talk 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I know there isn't a size limit to FAs, but what would be people's opinion on the lowest FA? I have a few articles at GA which I would like to take further, but their size is an issue to me, as the majority of FAs are larger. Some I feel I have got all all the available info, and it still feels small in comparison to other FAs (I know it needs a lead expansion). Is there any chance of such articles becoming FAs? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the list of FA criteria and several essays. Is there a central "How to prepare a page for FA" somewhere? Would be very grateful if users could point me in the right direction/s. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the resignation of the coordinator of Today's Featured Article at this page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paraceratherium should be italicized. 174.124.253.214 ( talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) L
This phrase seems unnecessarily redundant to me: There are 4,240 featured articles out of 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia (~0.1% are featured). Thus, about one in 1,060 articles are listed here. 4,240/4,510.669 = .1% = 1 in 1000; why say it three times? How would you feel about editing it to read, "Of the 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia, about .1% (4,240) have achieved featured status"? Ultrauber ( talk) 04:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How would you present the data in a table? It's just 2 numbers... Ultrauber ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For changes made to the tally here, please see discussion at WT:FAC, here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Where should a discussion about stabilization of Featured articles take place? My suggestion involves stricter editing rules, similar to top medical articles, as described here:
A combination of permanent semi-protection and peer review on the talk page, before addition of new material or significant changes, would help to stabilize and maintain the quality of Featured articles. It would ensure that they only improve.
Once an article is featured, it should not be possible to destabilize, vandalize, and/or degrade it so it loses its status, as currently happens all the time. Editing here shouldn't be a constant game of whack-a-mole. We should see our work as contributing to a stable encyclopedia, not as a continually chaotic waste of time. This creates editor burnout (admins are not the only ones who experience burnout), and we don't have an unlimited supply of qualified editors willing to put up with the unending frustration of seeing good content removed and good articles degraded. It's a waste of time.
If this is not the place for the discussion, where should it happen? -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"potential editors must suggest adds or changes to the article on a separately maintained page"is false, with no basis in policy. And rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
As I was asked to do by User:Graham Beards, I'd like to propose that some sections are split into further subsections for easier orientation. For example, I'd like to split "music biographies" into "people" and "music groups", to provide a list of artists seperate from bands, or similarly, created separate sections for albums, songs, genres etc. Are there any drawbacks to this that I'm not aware of or do you think it is a good idea?---- MA SHAUN IX 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at this when it struck me as odd that National Emblem of Belarus is in one category but heraldry in another. Flags and coats of arms are often covered together, so I think it would make sense for us to remove heraldry from "Royalty, nobility and heraldry", and have two sections: "Royalty and nobility" and "Heraldry, honors and vexillology". That would leave two scouting articles out of place that should probably be moved to "Culture and society". DrKiernan ( talk) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If paintings are going to be used in featured articles, they need to be accurate. Pedro I of Brazil is currently actively misleading people by using a copy of the painting that is not accurate, but which the nominators think looks nicer. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it's a violation of WP:OR to reject an image created by a group noted for good colour fidelity, and replace it with one with a blue cast taken from some random internet site because you'd rather the image looked differently.
We can't actively mislead readers as to what a painting looks like. One can reject the image alright if you think there's problems, or one can replace it, but if the painting's notable enough to be the lead image, it's our responsibility as an encyclopedia to depict it accurately. I'm 99.9% sure the non-Google-Art-Project image being edit warred to is inaccurate. The Google Art Project meets the criteria of a reliable source, whatever random place the other one's grabbed from doesn't.
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to redirect the term 'list of featured articles' to this page? This is the current result of the search. If not this then how about the term 'list of wikipedia featured articles'? Neuroxic ( talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The media section is simply too large.
This may not be a problem on its own, but I feel the page would be better organized if the section was split into a film, tv and miscellaneous (media) section.
This would certainly make finding featured examples of flims, tv episodes, tv shows and others easier.
Neuroxic ( talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
107.147.19.198 ( talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Hello, I was wondering if I could edit? There is some things that need editing.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Guideline revision urgently needed; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The page says 4546, whereas the category says 6518-1. Any good reason for this disparity? If not shall we insert a suitable expression based on {{PAGESINCATEGORY|Featured articles|R}} in place of the number? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
The following are in Category:Featured articles but not in Category:Wikipedia featured articles:
The following are in Category:Wikipedia featured articles but not in Category:Featured articles:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
This page currently says "On non-mobile versions of our website, a small bronze star icon (This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured, unless the appropriate user preference is set." Which preference is it talking about? I am aware of a gadget (under Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance) that allows the user to "Mark navigation links to featured and good articles in other languages" (which may not actually be working because it doesn't affect the sidebar like I thought it would when I tested it) but none I am aware of that allows you to turn it off for the page itself. Am I overlooking it or is this a mis-statement? Jason Quinn ( talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently 18 FA-articles are listed under an old, now-redirected, article title. I would like to change those to their actual new title, both at WP:FA and WP:FANMP: it would make comparing categories and FA-pages to look for inconsistencies a lot easier, if all titles were current article titles. Otherwise redirected titles appear as difference in such comparisons (categories use current titles of course). Just checking: Is there any technical reason to keep the old article titles in those 2 FA pages? GermanJoe ( talk) 11:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.
In the current redesign draft, the order of presentation of content is being modified, with Today's featured article alone at the top. Your input is welcome. The Transhumanist 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, did I miss something? I was very far from done with Oviri (Gauguin), yet it somehow got promoted? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On "Computing" section there is Scene7 page that should not be there. Scene7 is not featured article. Abstractray ( talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am new to the non-editting aspects of Wikipedia; however, I would like clarification, if not rectification, of a problem. Within the 'Philosophy and psychology' section of the Featured Article page, there are only a selection of the FA WikiProject: Philosophy pages. In total, the section has 12 pages (including those from WikiProject: Psychology). By contrast, the Category:Philosophy articles by quality displays 41 FA articles, while Category:Psychology articles by quality displays 16 FA articles. What is the cause of this gap? Shouldn't this section be updated to correspond to these projects?
Thanks, Tradereddy ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK Computer was released in May 1997, not June. In the "OK Computer, fame, and critical acclaim" section, in the 3rd paragraph down it states it was released in June, this is wrong. Comfytacular ( talk) 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Where (and how) does one go about finding collaborators for working an article to Featured status? I've been doing some reading on Robert Smalls, and I'd really like to see this article featured on the project. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) ( My talkpage) 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In the “Literature and theatre” section, shouldn’t “Famous Fantastic Mysteries” come before “Fantastic (magazine)”? Mark Froelich ( talk) 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in nominating an article for FA, but the article in question was featured in 2005. Is it ever acceptable to nominate an article to be featured again? Regards, -- Ches (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
A question: if an FA candidate article contains text copied from another edition of Wikipedia (either verbatim or by translation), and does not attribute this text in any way, would this be a violation of CC-BY-SA license, and would non-attribution preclude the article in question from becoming an FA? GregorB ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, Krystel-Ann here 24 years old, looking for a leg up in the film and television industry. I am currently studying at WAAPA, Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, recently joined the Australian Union, would like extra information on how to apply for more TV , Film Media roles. Any information necessary will help, look forward to seeing the feedback, thank you, Kind regards Krystel-Ann Marie Evans Krystel-Ann Marie Evans ( talk) 14:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.
URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Li Linxuan ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How can I make Let's Marry a featured article? ! Moscowamerican ( talk) 23:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Some problems with this blurb. Take a look and see what you think. -- John ( talk) 06:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Jonas Vinther, now Doctor Papa Jones, claims by way of a FA star on their userpage ( first version) that they are to be credited with having raised Gary Cooper to FA status--there is no other way such a star can be read. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gary_Cooper/archive1 contains one single comment by them: "Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status".
As the article history indicates, this is rather an overstatement, and I note that the substance of their edits (see here), except for this one, have been reverted one way or another in the editing process, mostly by Bede735, the FA nominator who undoubtedly deserves full credit. I find this seriously troubling and invite your opinions. Drmies ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This change by Edokter on 16 May replaced all the middle dots (unicode character b7) with asterisks (unicode character 2a). This caused a catastrophic failure of the FACBot's FANMP (Featured Articles Not on Main Page) process. It couldn't find any articles and zeroed the page. (It rebuilds the FANMP page each time because, in theory at least, the delegates could promote multiple articles at once). I have corrected the problem. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. DrKay ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If you know the answer, please reply at the Village Pump. Kaldari ( talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Busyfash83 ( talk) 20:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a pointer. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a small note for FA contributors. TFA History Link is a user script which adds a link to the top toolbar for viewing Special:History/Today's Featured Article in a Recent Changes format. It is primarily designed for Featured Article contributors, reviewers and recent changes patrollers to quickly see TFA revisions. The source can be found here. Lourdes 11:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see this post about re-running TFAs, and comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Just a heads up that 17% of FAs apparently have cleanup tags of some sort. This is low compared to the rest of the encyclopedia, but I thought it was rather high for articles that are expected to be representative of Wikipedia's best.
czar 07:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Are there any examples of non-fiction, non-biography book articles that have ever reached FA status. Couldn't see any easy way of finding them in hte list of FAs. I'm looking for good examples of the way such articles should be written. Thanks, Spinning Spark 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm writing an article that includes discussion about the difference between an FA vs a B vs Stub articles (medical focus). Are there any statistics on:
I'd be interested in either raw info, or comparison between quality ranks, or comparison within an article at different years. I thought I'd ask here just in case someone already knew before I start analysing a random sample from scratch! Thanks in advance. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't particularly important, but I have this page on my watchlist, and I noticed that Sarastro just promoted 8 articles with a single edit. Is that a record? AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
50.195.166.123 ( talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted ZETA (fusion reactor) to GA over two months ago. In that time I have received only minor comments about a few copyedit issues and a question about page numbers. As the purpose of moving to GA was to eventually bring the article here, is there any reason not to do so now? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Came upon this page listing FAs by length, but it's nearly three years out of date. The lengths of many of the pages have changed since then, more than 700 new articles have achieved FA status since then (5,002 vs. 4,297). Anyone know if there's either a) a more current list somewhere, or b) a relatively straightforward way of generating one? Thanks! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe you can add Romania as a featured article because it has a lot of information and the most people don't know so much about Romania, a country in Eastern Europe and with this you can change it. some french and english people think that romania is full of Roma and thinks like that so i hope that if you feature Romania people will know more about the beautiful country and if just one time Romania is featured and not the 352 war article it will mean a lot for me and the other Romanian people. -- Hereismarius ( talk) 17:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are Simpsons season synopses like this for example "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" whereas articles like this are merely considered "good?" And it's not just that one, there's like a bunch of Simpsons season pages that are featured whilst guys like Oliver Cromwell get a "need more citations" template? The examples go on and on: season 4 of Family Guy is apparently one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." - Phone Charger ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion about reforms to the featured article process ongoing at WP:VPI#Change FAC to A-class style review. Interested editors might want to comment there. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 08:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to be able to edit this i will keep this up to date ive been studing them Luke2034 ( talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the latest is the permanent block YahWehSaves from Wikipedia, largely due to his history of diddling with Audie Murphy. If that were the only one. Please see the latest good-faith edits, which Chris troutman more or less reverted and left a message on the article's talk page. I have been reminded on my talk page that my ongoing involvement with the article makes it a COI of me to give it Full Protection. But if there's one article out there that needs Full Protection, it's this one. Audie Murphy is just one of those beloved legendary figures in American history that editors are just tempted to insert their edits to feel a part of it, or whatever the motive is. I believe the latest edits were good-faith, but they were just a crap shoot of moving words around in sentences, adding absolutely nothing to the article. Can we please consider giving this article indef Full Protection? — Maile ( talk)
RFC proposal to add full protection to new FAs, and retroactive upon request to older FAs. Thereafter, the article could be edited with a talk page request, or re-assessed for its FA status. There is a precedent set by Arbcom for giving select categories of articles a permanent protection level. ARB Extended Confirmed decision
Presently, FAC nominators and reviewers work extensively on honing an article to FA quality. It is an admirable process with credible results. Achieving FA, it becomes a target, more so if it's TFA. Nothing is in place to prevent the sand castle effect, where anyone can instantly knock it down. Vandalism, or good-faith "just because". Wikipedia policies can be cited to excuse many edits.
Revert too much, and you face charges of "ownership" behavior. Or bogged down in an endless edit war, or talk page war. We all have our stories:
Please comment below. — Maile ( talk) 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes.is official Wikipedia policy, and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at FA would be immediately struck down; if you want to get a core Wikipedia policy revoked, you'll at minimum need a widely-publicized site-wide RFC and even then it would almost certainly be blocked by the WMF. (We had to fight tooth-and-nail just to get the right to protect FAs, given that Today's Featured Article has long appeared immediately below the "Anyone can edit" strapline.) "Featured" doesn't mean "perfect", and locking non-admins out of 5000+ articles, most of which have no significant history of disruption and all of which could still be improved in some way, would be an awful signal to send. Protection is a last resort when all other measures fail, not a labor-saving device because we get annoyed with peasants who dare to touch our precious articles. If you want to be able to lock a page into your preferred version, go to Citizendium. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are now about 300 FAs listed under the Media section (before you get to its subsections), which seems very unwieldy to me. Would it not be wise to partition them into sections for television shows, television episodes and films? If there are no objections, I can re-organise them as such. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not the sole forum to raise this issue, but I wanted to share something about the use of featured articles.
I advocate for citations after every sentence in wiki articles. Part of current practice is having fewer citations in the leads of articles on the presumptions that typical readers find citations make text less readable and less friendly and that any reader will be able to find the sources of facts in the bodies of articles.
I am helping to organize a wiki translatathon (translation event) as described at
The Wikimedia Foundation presented the mw:Content translation in 2014 and this tool has greatly matured and become among the easiest wiki activities in which new users can engage since about 2016. At this translatathon event we will introduce multilingual editors to Wikipedia by having them translate good content, mostly English, into their native languages.
We will be recommending the leads of English Wikipedia's featured articles as suggested translation topics. A problem with this is that this often means that when content goes from English to another language, the citations will not go with the content, because the current custom is to expect fewer citations in the leads of featured articles than is allowable in the body of the text.
I wish that the featured article process would expect citations in the lead in the same way that we expect citations elsewhere in the body of the article, regardless of whether that repeats citations. The citations are not burdensome here, and they are extremely valuable in the context of translating the content to other language Wikipedias. If only we could translate the leads of English articles to other languages then especially minority languages could be better established sooner. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&action=history
Geography and places: + sub-headings - makes the links easier to distinguish from each other
the bot placed two at the wrong location
23h112e ( talk) 20:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed many examples in the grading template are outdated and link to old versions of articles (i.e Water fluoridation). I was about to replace the links to some of them with their new versions as these articles have kept the same class, but I first want to know: is there a reason to keep the old links? Is it these versions in particular that are perfect examples, or would an update in that area be suitable?
I've said my peace Double Plus Ungood ( talk) 05:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey! FYI, an RFC has been opened at Talk:Winter_War#rfc_AD71249 concerning citations in an FA lede. Manelolo ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
On 25 January 1958 Sir John Cockroft announced that (we really think) ZETA had produced fusion. Can I suggest the article for the front page that day next year? Is there a limit to how far in advance these things are planned? I just wish I had submitted in time for the 60th anniversary... Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may be of interest to Featured Article/List writers and reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean the question in a philosophical sense. As in can we theoretically convert any existing good article into a featured article?
I am asking this because there exists subjects about which only few sources exist, and even if you exhaust all of those sources, you end up with a relatively short article. It seems to me that FAs must be of a certain length, which makes me wonder if it is fair to say that "for some subjects, there are so few sources available today that it is unlikely they can have their own featured article". But I would like to know other people's opinion about this statement. huji— TALK 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I do have a question regarding the article David Meade (author). My question is here. I do would like my question answered on the article's talk page. Thanks! -- LovelyGirl7 talk 02:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to eliminate the
Featured content portal, and all other portals. Please share your thoughts on the matter at: For more information, read the Guide to deletion. |
—
The Transhumanist 13:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am working through Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches and have come across eight articles that passed Good Article review and then later failed Featured Article candidacy. The status of the {{ article history}} template of these articles is set to FFAC. The issue with this is that this removes the articles from Category:Wikipedia good articles even though they are still considered Good Articles. I left a message at Template talk:Article history#FFAC/GA which may solve the issue if someone takes it up (sorry well outside my expertise). If that fails I was thinking to just change the status back to GA, so the category is still displayed. I couldn't find any practical reason (i.e categories) for keeping FFAC, but thought I would check here first. Another option (one I just thought of while typing this) may be to manually add the category. Not sure if that would work, but if it does that could keep the FFAC heading and potentially be in the correct category. Either way I would like to know the importance of the FFAC satus before changing too much. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
|currentstatus=
in the {{
article history}} template. This will list the article as a failed featured article candidate and a good article. It should be used if an article is promoted to Good status, but fails its Featured attempt. See
here for an example.Some other animals that should be a featured article are tigers and bears, as the tiger is endangered and we're doing our best to save them. As for bears, I guess we should list the grizzly bear and/or the polar bear because of their importance. Also the September 11th attacks should be a featured article as they were an important moment in US history, the deadliest mass murder in US history, and how it permanently changed US history. Also, only 3 of the 4 hijacked flights were listed. The one that was not listed was United Airlines flight 175, and that one definitely needs to be listed to fill in the gap. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I noticed the random featured article link is going out to another site which appears to be nonfunctional, at least with the latest version of safari for the iPhone. I am also surprised its a feature which is not part of the Wikipedia site, but some tool that a single person is solely responsible for. Maybe we should remove that link until it can be maintained on wikipedia's servers 75.158.88.133 ( talk) 04:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed that roughly half of FAC promotions/archives are done by Ian Rose and the other half are done by Graham Colm. Ucucha has not edited in a month and has not promoted or archived a FAC since late August. Thus, I have posted the following on Ucucha's talk page:
Hello Ucucha. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've noticed that you haven't edited in a month and haven't promoted or archived any FAC since late August. I understand that you might be busy or that something has come up in your life that limits your on-wiki time, but still, you're a FAC coordinator. If you find that you are no longer able or willing to serve in that capacity, it might be for the best that you step down.
I in no way mean to disrespect the tremendous effort you have put in at Wikipedia, both in writing articles and in serving as a FAC coordinator, but I do think you owe it to the community to either return to active involvement in promoting and archiving FAC candidates or step aside and let someone else do the job. I would greatly appreciate a reply. Thank you.
I will also raise my concerns at the FAC talk page. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I am perfectly willing to allow Ucucha to address my concerns himself, and the process of removing or adding any FAC coordinators should not be done in a hasty manner. I am not sure how the community should replace Ucucha, if the community decides that that is the best course of action, but we should think this through.
In summary, I think Ucucha's inaction should be addressed at some point, but I think to be fair to him we should give him some time to defend himself. And any process of replacement should take place after we have given due consideration to the process and potential candidates for such a position. AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, as an alternative to pinging or leaving messages for the FAC coords individually, we now have the {{ @FAC}} template notification that pings them as a group. The FAC instructions have been updated accordingly. Let me know if any questions/problems. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The title is Featured articles. The content is 99% a list/ grouping of the current? English? Featured articles (as of when?, is it comprehensive (automatically maintained) or regularly updated?). I am looking for information about the various quality levels of Wikipedia articles, and naturally EXPECT an article "Featured articles" to put the term in context. This does not. No references, nothing. I suggest this article's title be changed to "Featured articles - list by subject area". It would be nice for it actually to reference a substantitive article about featured articles, but perhaps that is asking too much. Abitslow ( talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including featured articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing an article that I hope to bring here on a television documentary and it would be nice to have something to compare it to. Does anybody know of nay examples offhand of FAs on documentaries? I've had a look at the list and all the TV stuff seems to be fiction (not that there's anything wrong with fiction, it's just not much help for my situation!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stormy388 ( talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let people on this project know, Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, a featured article, has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. St Anselm ( talk) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyway to tell which featured article(s) is/are the shortest (in bytes)? Or maybe there's a bot that can generate a list? I'm curious to see the shortest FA length since a GA I worked on has failed an FA nom three times for being too short, despite being extensively covered in every detail. – Dream out loud ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me (and my computer) or is Template:Featured article, also known as the star that appears in the top right of every featured article, too low? I assume it's a result of the recent typography update. I can post a screenshot if necessary. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am considering bringing 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA but I suspect that PR wont give me the feedback I might need so I would like to ask the more experienced FA participants if they feel this is ready or if they can point out areas where it needs improvement. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#OPENPARA RfC. Giant Snowman 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 45 threads on this page and the oldest have not been responded to since November 2012. I've therefore added automatic archiving to this page. Threads with no responses in 90 days (that's 3 months) will be archived. -- LT910001 ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed today's FA is on "Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow", a video game. I do not know off the top of my head how many video games have been the subject of featured articles, but I can tell you that as a member of the Wikipedia-reading public that there seem to have been a lot of these in recent years and that they seem to be the result of a niche interest in the subject generally. I find it unlikely that there aren't enough articles on a wider variety of subjects that qualify for featured article status... So while I acknowledge that video games are a significant part of the world-experience for a number of Wikipedia users, I wanted to encourage consideration of other subject matter for future Wikipedia featured articles. That is all. Keep calm and carry on. KDS4444 Talk 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I know there isn't a size limit to FAs, but what would be people's opinion on the lowest FA? I have a few articles at GA which I would like to take further, but their size is an issue to me, as the majority of FAs are larger. Some I feel I have got all all the available info, and it still feels small in comparison to other FAs (I know it needs a lead expansion). Is there any chance of such articles becoming FAs? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the list of FA criteria and several essays. Is there a central "How to prepare a page for FA" somewhere? Would be very grateful if users could point me in the right direction/s. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the resignation of the coordinator of Today's Featured Article at this page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paraceratherium should be italicized. 174.124.253.214 ( talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) L
This phrase seems unnecessarily redundant to me: There are 4,240 featured articles out of 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia (~0.1% are featured). Thus, about one in 1,060 articles are listed here. 4,240/4,510.669 = .1% = 1 in 1000; why say it three times? How would you feel about editing it to read, "Of the 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia, about .1% (4,240) have achieved featured status"? Ultrauber ( talk) 04:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How would you present the data in a table? It's just 2 numbers... Ultrauber ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For changes made to the tally here, please see discussion at WT:FAC, here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Where should a discussion about stabilization of Featured articles take place? My suggestion involves stricter editing rules, similar to top medical articles, as described here:
A combination of permanent semi-protection and peer review on the talk page, before addition of new material or significant changes, would help to stabilize and maintain the quality of Featured articles. It would ensure that they only improve.
Once an article is featured, it should not be possible to destabilize, vandalize, and/or degrade it so it loses its status, as currently happens all the time. Editing here shouldn't be a constant game of whack-a-mole. We should see our work as contributing to a stable encyclopedia, not as a continually chaotic waste of time. This creates editor burnout (admins are not the only ones who experience burnout), and we don't have an unlimited supply of qualified editors willing to put up with the unending frustration of seeing good content removed and good articles degraded. It's a waste of time.
If this is not the place for the discussion, where should it happen? -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"potential editors must suggest adds or changes to the article on a separately maintained page"is false, with no basis in policy. And rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
As I was asked to do by User:Graham Beards, I'd like to propose that some sections are split into further subsections for easier orientation. For example, I'd like to split "music biographies" into "people" and "music groups", to provide a list of artists seperate from bands, or similarly, created separate sections for albums, songs, genres etc. Are there any drawbacks to this that I'm not aware of or do you think it is a good idea?---- MA SHAUN IX 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at this when it struck me as odd that National Emblem of Belarus is in one category but heraldry in another. Flags and coats of arms are often covered together, so I think it would make sense for us to remove heraldry from "Royalty, nobility and heraldry", and have two sections: "Royalty and nobility" and "Heraldry, honors and vexillology". That would leave two scouting articles out of place that should probably be moved to "Culture and society". DrKiernan ( talk) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If paintings are going to be used in featured articles, they need to be accurate. Pedro I of Brazil is currently actively misleading people by using a copy of the painting that is not accurate, but which the nominators think looks nicer. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it's a violation of WP:OR to reject an image created by a group noted for good colour fidelity, and replace it with one with a blue cast taken from some random internet site because you'd rather the image looked differently.
We can't actively mislead readers as to what a painting looks like. One can reject the image alright if you think there's problems, or one can replace it, but if the painting's notable enough to be the lead image, it's our responsibility as an encyclopedia to depict it accurately. I'm 99.9% sure the non-Google-Art-Project image being edit warred to is inaccurate. The Google Art Project meets the criteria of a reliable source, whatever random place the other one's grabbed from doesn't.
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to redirect the term 'list of featured articles' to this page? This is the current result of the search. If not this then how about the term 'list of wikipedia featured articles'? Neuroxic ( talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The media section is simply too large.
This may not be a problem on its own, but I feel the page would be better organized if the section was split into a film, tv and miscellaneous (media) section.
This would certainly make finding featured examples of flims, tv episodes, tv shows and others easier.
Neuroxic ( talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
107.147.19.198 ( talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Hello, I was wondering if I could edit? There is some things that need editing.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Guideline revision urgently needed; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The page says 4546, whereas the category says 6518-1. Any good reason for this disparity? If not shall we insert a suitable expression based on {{PAGESINCATEGORY|Featured articles|R}} in place of the number? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
The following are in Category:Featured articles but not in Category:Wikipedia featured articles:
The following are in Category:Wikipedia featured articles but not in Category:Featured articles:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
This page currently says "On non-mobile versions of our website, a small bronze star icon (This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured, unless the appropriate user preference is set." Which preference is it talking about? I am aware of a gadget (under Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance) that allows the user to "Mark navigation links to featured and good articles in other languages" (which may not actually be working because it doesn't affect the sidebar like I thought it would when I tested it) but none I am aware of that allows you to turn it off for the page itself. Am I overlooking it or is this a mis-statement? Jason Quinn ( talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently 18 FA-articles are listed under an old, now-redirected, article title. I would like to change those to their actual new title, both at WP:FA and WP:FANMP: it would make comparing categories and FA-pages to look for inconsistencies a lot easier, if all titles were current article titles. Otherwise redirected titles appear as difference in such comparisons (categories use current titles of course). Just checking: Is there any technical reason to keep the old article titles in those 2 FA pages? GermanJoe ( talk) 11:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.
In the current redesign draft, the order of presentation of content is being modified, with Today's featured article alone at the top. Your input is welcome. The Transhumanist 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, did I miss something? I was very far from done with Oviri (Gauguin), yet it somehow got promoted? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On "Computing" section there is Scene7 page that should not be there. Scene7 is not featured article. Abstractray ( talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am new to the non-editting aspects of Wikipedia; however, I would like clarification, if not rectification, of a problem. Within the 'Philosophy and psychology' section of the Featured Article page, there are only a selection of the FA WikiProject: Philosophy pages. In total, the section has 12 pages (including those from WikiProject: Psychology). By contrast, the Category:Philosophy articles by quality displays 41 FA articles, while Category:Psychology articles by quality displays 16 FA articles. What is the cause of this gap? Shouldn't this section be updated to correspond to these projects?
Thanks, Tradereddy ( talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK Computer was released in May 1997, not June. In the "OK Computer, fame, and critical acclaim" section, in the 3rd paragraph down it states it was released in June, this is wrong. Comfytacular ( talk) 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Where (and how) does one go about finding collaborators for working an article to Featured status? I've been doing some reading on Robert Smalls, and I'd really like to see this article featured on the project. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) ( My talkpage) 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In the “Literature and theatre” section, shouldn’t “Famous Fantastic Mysteries” come before “Fantastic (magazine)”? Mark Froelich ( talk) 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in nominating an article for FA, but the article in question was featured in 2005. Is it ever acceptable to nominate an article to be featured again? Regards, -- Ches (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
A question: if an FA candidate article contains text copied from another edition of Wikipedia (either verbatim or by translation), and does not attribute this text in any way, would this be a violation of CC-BY-SA license, and would non-attribution preclude the article in question from becoming an FA? GregorB ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, Krystel-Ann here 24 years old, looking for a leg up in the film and television industry. I am currently studying at WAAPA, Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, recently joined the Australian Union, would like extra information on how to apply for more TV , Film Media roles. Any information necessary will help, look forward to seeing the feedback, thank you, Kind regards Krystel-Ann Marie Evans Krystel-Ann Marie Evans ( talk) 14:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.
URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Li Linxuan ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How can I make Let's Marry a featured article? ! Moscowamerican ( talk) 23:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Some problems with this blurb. Take a look and see what you think. -- John ( talk) 06:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Jonas Vinther, now Doctor Papa Jones, claims by way of a FA star on their userpage ( first version) that they are to be credited with having raised Gary Cooper to FA status--there is no other way such a star can be read. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gary_Cooper/archive1 contains one single comment by them: "Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status".
As the article history indicates, this is rather an overstatement, and I note that the substance of their edits (see here), except for this one, have been reverted one way or another in the editing process, mostly by Bede735, the FA nominator who undoubtedly deserves full credit. I find this seriously troubling and invite your opinions. Drmies ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This change by Edokter on 16 May replaced all the middle dots (unicode character b7) with asterisks (unicode character 2a). This caused a catastrophic failure of the FACBot's FANMP (Featured Articles Not on Main Page) process. It couldn't find any articles and zeroed the page. (It rebuilds the FANMP page each time because, in theory at least, the delegates could promote multiple articles at once). I have corrected the problem. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. DrKay ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If you know the answer, please reply at the Village Pump. Kaldari ( talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Busyfash83 ( talk) 20:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a pointer. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a small note for FA contributors. TFA History Link is a user script which adds a link to the top toolbar for viewing Special:History/Today's Featured Article in a Recent Changes format. It is primarily designed for Featured Article contributors, reviewers and recent changes patrollers to quickly see TFA revisions. The source can be found here. Lourdes 11:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see this post about re-running TFAs, and comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Just a heads up that 17% of FAs apparently have cleanup tags of some sort. This is low compared to the rest of the encyclopedia, but I thought it was rather high for articles that are expected to be representative of Wikipedia's best.
czar 07:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Are there any examples of non-fiction, non-biography book articles that have ever reached FA status. Couldn't see any easy way of finding them in hte list of FAs. I'm looking for good examples of the way such articles should be written. Thanks, Spinning Spark 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm writing an article that includes discussion about the difference between an FA vs a B vs Stub articles (medical focus). Are there any statistics on:
I'd be interested in either raw info, or comparison between quality ranks, or comparison within an article at different years. I thought I'd ask here just in case someone already knew before I start analysing a random sample from scratch! Thanks in advance. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't particularly important, but I have this page on my watchlist, and I noticed that Sarastro just promoted 8 articles with a single edit. Is that a record? AmericanLemming ( talk) 15:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
50.195.166.123 ( talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted ZETA (fusion reactor) to GA over two months ago. In that time I have received only minor comments about a few copyedit issues and a question about page numbers. As the purpose of moving to GA was to eventually bring the article here, is there any reason not to do so now? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Came upon this page listing FAs by length, but it's nearly three years out of date. The lengths of many of the pages have changed since then, more than 700 new articles have achieved FA status since then (5,002 vs. 4,297). Anyone know if there's either a) a more current list somewhere, or b) a relatively straightforward way of generating one? Thanks! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe you can add Romania as a featured article because it has a lot of information and the most people don't know so much about Romania, a country in Eastern Europe and with this you can change it. some french and english people think that romania is full of Roma and thinks like that so i hope that if you feature Romania people will know more about the beautiful country and if just one time Romania is featured and not the 352 war article it will mean a lot for me and the other Romanian people. -- Hereismarius ( talk) 17:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are Simpsons season synopses like this for example "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" whereas articles like this are merely considered "good?" And it's not just that one, there's like a bunch of Simpsons season pages that are featured whilst guys like Oliver Cromwell get a "need more citations" template? The examples go on and on: season 4 of Family Guy is apparently one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer." - Phone Charger ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion about reforms to the featured article process ongoing at WP:VPI#Change FAC to A-class style review. Interested editors might want to comment there. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 08:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Featured articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to be able to edit this i will keep this up to date ive been studing them Luke2034 ( talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the latest is the permanent block YahWehSaves from Wikipedia, largely due to his history of diddling with Audie Murphy. If that were the only one. Please see the latest good-faith edits, which Chris troutman more or less reverted and left a message on the article's talk page. I have been reminded on my talk page that my ongoing involvement with the article makes it a COI of me to give it Full Protection. But if there's one article out there that needs Full Protection, it's this one. Audie Murphy is just one of those beloved legendary figures in American history that editors are just tempted to insert their edits to feel a part of it, or whatever the motive is. I believe the latest edits were good-faith, but they were just a crap shoot of moving words around in sentences, adding absolutely nothing to the article. Can we please consider giving this article indef Full Protection? — Maile ( talk)
RFC proposal to add full protection to new FAs, and retroactive upon request to older FAs. Thereafter, the article could be edited with a talk page request, or re-assessed for its FA status. There is a precedent set by Arbcom for giving select categories of articles a permanent protection level. ARB Extended Confirmed decision
Presently, FAC nominators and reviewers work extensively on honing an article to FA quality. It is an admirable process with credible results. Achieving FA, it becomes a target, more so if it's TFA. Nothing is in place to prevent the sand castle effect, where anyone can instantly knock it down. Vandalism, or good-faith "just because". Wikipedia policies can be cited to excuse many edits.
Revert too much, and you face charges of "ownership" behavior. Or bogged down in an endless edit war, or talk page war. We all have our stories:
Please comment below. — Maile ( talk) 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. However, brief periods of an appropriate and reasonable protection level are allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes.is official Wikipedia policy, and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at FA would be immediately struck down; if you want to get a core Wikipedia policy revoked, you'll at minimum need a widely-publicized site-wide RFC and even then it would almost certainly be blocked by the WMF. (We had to fight tooth-and-nail just to get the right to protect FAs, given that Today's Featured Article has long appeared immediately below the "Anyone can edit" strapline.) "Featured" doesn't mean "perfect", and locking non-admins out of 5000+ articles, most of which have no significant history of disruption and all of which could still be improved in some way, would be an awful signal to send. Protection is a last resort when all other measures fail, not a labor-saving device because we get annoyed with peasants who dare to touch our precious articles. If you want to be able to lock a page into your preferred version, go to Citizendium. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There are now about 300 FAs listed under the Media section (before you get to its subsections), which seems very unwieldy to me. Would it not be wise to partition them into sections for television shows, television episodes and films? If there are no objections, I can re-organise them as such. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not the sole forum to raise this issue, but I wanted to share something about the use of featured articles.
I advocate for citations after every sentence in wiki articles. Part of current practice is having fewer citations in the leads of articles on the presumptions that typical readers find citations make text less readable and less friendly and that any reader will be able to find the sources of facts in the bodies of articles.
I am helping to organize a wiki translatathon (translation event) as described at
The Wikimedia Foundation presented the mw:Content translation in 2014 and this tool has greatly matured and become among the easiest wiki activities in which new users can engage since about 2016. At this translatathon event we will introduce multilingual editors to Wikipedia by having them translate good content, mostly English, into their native languages.
We will be recommending the leads of English Wikipedia's featured articles as suggested translation topics. A problem with this is that this often means that when content goes from English to another language, the citations will not go with the content, because the current custom is to expect fewer citations in the leads of featured articles than is allowable in the body of the text.
I wish that the featured article process would expect citations in the lead in the same way that we expect citations elsewhere in the body of the article, regardless of whether that repeats citations. The citations are not burdensome here, and they are extremely valuable in the context of translating the content to other language Wikipedias. If only we could translate the leads of English articles to other languages then especially minority languages could be better established sooner. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&action=history
Geography and places: + sub-headings - makes the links easier to distinguish from each other
the bot placed two at the wrong location
23h112e ( talk) 20:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed many examples in the grading template are outdated and link to old versions of articles (i.e Water fluoridation). I was about to replace the links to some of them with their new versions as these articles have kept the same class, but I first want to know: is there a reason to keep the old links? Is it these versions in particular that are perfect examples, or would an update in that area be suitable?
I've said my peace Double Plus Ungood ( talk) 05:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey! FYI, an RFC has been opened at Talk:Winter_War#rfc_AD71249 concerning citations in an FA lede. Manelolo ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
On 25 January 1958 Sir John Cockroft announced that (we really think) ZETA had produced fusion. Can I suggest the article for the front page that day next year? Is there a limit to how far in advance these things are planned? I just wish I had submitted in time for the 60th anniversary... Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may be of interest to Featured Article/List writers and reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean the question in a philosophical sense. As in can we theoretically convert any existing good article into a featured article?
I am asking this because there exists subjects about which only few sources exist, and even if you exhaust all of those sources, you end up with a relatively short article. It seems to me that FAs must be of a certain length, which makes me wonder if it is fair to say that "for some subjects, there are so few sources available today that it is unlikely they can have their own featured article". But I would like to know other people's opinion about this statement. huji— TALK 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I do have a question regarding the article David Meade (author). My question is here. I do would like my question answered on the article's talk page. Thanks! -- LovelyGirl7 talk 02:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to eliminate the
Featured content portal, and all other portals. Please share your thoughts on the matter at: For more information, read the Guide to deletion. |
—
The Transhumanist 13:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am working through Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches and have come across eight articles that passed Good Article review and then later failed Featured Article candidacy. The status of the {{ article history}} template of these articles is set to FFAC. The issue with this is that this removes the articles from Category:Wikipedia good articles even though they are still considered Good Articles. I left a message at Template talk:Article history#FFAC/GA which may solve the issue if someone takes it up (sorry well outside my expertise). If that fails I was thinking to just change the status back to GA, so the category is still displayed. I couldn't find any practical reason (i.e categories) for keeping FFAC, but thought I would check here first. Another option (one I just thought of while typing this) may be to manually add the category. Not sure if that would work, but if it does that could keep the FFAC heading and potentially be in the correct category. Either way I would like to know the importance of the FFAC satus before changing too much. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
|currentstatus=
in the {{
article history}} template. This will list the article as a failed featured article candidate and a good article. It should be used if an article is promoted to Good status, but fails its Featured attempt. See
here for an example.Some other animals that should be a featured article are tigers and bears, as the tiger is endangered and we're doing our best to save them. As for bears, I guess we should list the grizzly bear and/or the polar bear because of their importance. Also the September 11th attacks should be a featured article as they were an important moment in US history, the deadliest mass murder in US history, and how it permanently changed US history. Also, only 3 of the 4 hijacked flights were listed. The one that was not listed was United Airlines flight 175, and that one definitely needs to be listed to fill in the gap. Tigerdude9 ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)